A 40 Cal. Restraint

Another gun post is coming, but just a quick comment about the “Fiddles while Rome burns” attitude of the WH. All the bad news around us, the real unemployment rate, a third of Americans under water on credit, a “red line” border down south, now you see it-now you don’t (And can you believe that moronic George Will on Sunday, let them all in, F@ck It), and what has got the WH staffers all abuzz? The non existent move to impeach their savior, an alternate universe over there.

The gun grabbers have a new ad, take a look;

It is only a 30 second spot, how many lies or inaccuracies can you count?

First off we have to dispense with reality and assume that bad dad was pounding on that door for 20 minutes, about the average time it takes to get a live person when calling 911.
Next off we see a viewer discretion warning, depicting domestic violence, yeah, I guess murdering someone could be considered domestic violence, but can’t we just call it murder? Smothering her with that couch pillow or one upside the head with a lamp, still murder?
He got what he came for, she obviously can’t stop him, why shoot her? Is it because bad guys do bad things, and the ultimate bad is to kill her?
Yes, we know that bad guys can get guns, no matter how strict the local gun laws are, by definition criminals do not follow the law, so existent gun laws (the whole purpose of the video, to strengthen them) are meaningless.
Why the “stop gun violence against women” insert at the end? What, gun violence against men is OK?
And the big question, why doesn’t she have one as well? Bad dad is obviously dangerous, a danger to her and her child. Staring down the barrel of a 40 cal. would get 99.9 percent of all bad dads to leave, and if not, she has the drop on him, better his blood on her new carpet then hers.

These are the folks that sponsored the ad. When reading their mission statement they always sound reasonable. Who could possibly be against background checks, educating gun owners on gun safety and proper storage, keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys, and yes, keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, however lofty and unworkable that is (yell at your wife, no guns for you, buddy).

Yes, I would like an end to gun violence (against the victims, of course), can I also get less traffic accident deaths, less poverty, less national debt, and maybe someone in the WH that is actually proud to be an American? Chip by little chip, the 2nd Amendment is under siege. Good people can be against bad people having guns, but the only way to be sure is to remove all guns from everyone, not an option.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    molon labe

    These fucktards won’t stop trying, ever. No matter what they get, they’ll always want more. It’s the one thing the NRA gets right, even if they do fuck up the message transmission.

    As much as these assholes want my guns, I’ll fight to keep them even more.

    Thumb up 8

  2. Hal_10000

    Everytown is quickly establishing a reputation as a pack of anti-gun hysterics, liars and emotional manipulators. They have another one about a kid finding a gun and shooting another kid. And weren’t they the ones who falsely claimed there had been 72 gun shootings since Sandy Hook, a claim even CNN said was garbage?

    Thumb up 9

  3. Technomad

    Dealing with gun grabbers is, if nothing else, a good preparation for the zombie apocalypse. Like zombies, gun grabbers will keep coming mindlessly, no matter what you do, and can’t be reasoned with.

    Thumb up 7

  4. InsipiD

    Gun grabbers are exactly like MADD: it’s very easy to ask rhetorically stuff like “are you in favor of children getting shot?” until you’re shamed into thinking you have to be on their side, but it’s like trying to bargain with a boa constrictor. The snake is just moving a little bit at a time with an ultimate goal that you can’t be a part of at all.

    Thumb up 4

  5. Poosh

    Agreed. I’m not sure how this is classed as Domestic Violence against women… it just seems like violence. It could have easily been the other way around as well (paradoxically a reason why guns have done more for feminism and gender equality than your average feminist these days).

    Thumb up 6

  6. Technomad

    One reason I despise the gun-grabbers, and libtards in general, is their love of the appeal to emotion—“How can you stand to think of innocent sweet little children being shot?” Usually spoken in tones that imply clearly that if you are against them, you’re clearly an agent of Beelzebub and gloat over the deaths of innocents.

    Thumb up 8

  7. Ed Kline

    “First off we have to dispense with reality and assume that bad dad was pounding on that door for 20 minutes, about the average time it takes to get a live person when calling 911.”
    I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve called 911 more than a few times in my life ( almost always medical emergencies) including June of this year, and I got a person every time within seconds.

    Thumb up 1

  8. Aussiesmurf

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 2

  9. Poosh

    Following the disarming of the Australian population it is often said that gun crime went down. This is actually quite a cheeky lie. It is true that gun crime in that country went down but it was ALREADY going down prior to the ban i.e. the downward trend was taking place already. In other words it had limited effect (I won’t say it had no effect).

    Emotion is indeed the real problem here. Under a perfect system with perfect regulation (of course guns should be regulated in some fashion, it’s question of what kind, and how much) – but under a perfect system where all guns are legally sold to buyers who are psychologically evaluated, where every single bullet is tracked and so on, where you have 100% border control etc. and where it is basically impossible for a criminal to get hold of a firearm … crimes of passion will still exist, emotion is still the problem, until we start to build societies with greater understanding of our own biology i.e emotions.

    I think strict, intelligent gun laws and enforcement can happily prevent most criminals from committing crime. But it will never stop crimes of passion.

    Thumb up 2

  10. richtaylor365 *

    You seem to be saying that, because ‘criminals do not follow the law’ there is no point in having any laws which restrict or prohibit any products whatsoever.

    Um, in re reading that sentence I found zero ambiguity, maybe the amount of words threw you off, let me try again with a shorter sentence , “Criminals do not follow the law, laws wrt to guns are meaningless to them”, better?

    home intruders who are going to seize your balls and rape your woman and kids….

    Missed that one, can you find that spot on youtube and share it with us. Emotive or not, American’s have a particular and distinct affinity for firearms, whether you as an Aussie get that or not, irrelevant. Constitutional Amendments means something to those folks that live under it. Just view it as one more of those peculiarities we have, or, as the old saying goes, like it or lump it.

    Thumb up 5

  11. Aussiesmurf

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  12. Technomad

    The fact is that the vast, vast majority of American gun owners use their guns in a safe, responsible manner. Why should the 98% be punished for the crimes of 2% or less?

    And why is it that when other, non-gun-controlling options for dealing with the possibility of mass shootings—like, say, locking up paranoid schizophrenics, like was done in the old days—are floated, the people who scream loudest are always the ones who think that yet another anti-gun law will, somehow, miraculously solve the problem?

    Thumb up 8

  13. richtaylor365 *

    Aussiesmurf, I know you are not this dense, why are you having such a hard time with this?

    Since criminals will drive anyway, there should be no need for driver’s licences.

    Since criminals will drive anyway, a drivers license is meaningless to them

    Since criminals will drink alcohol anyway, there should be no regulation of the sale of liquor, including age.

    To the underage drinker, an age limit is meaningless to him

    Since criminals will steal anyway, there is no need for laws against theft.

    To the thief, laws against stealing are meaningless to him.

    Come on, you are messing with me, right? Nobody can be that obtuse.

    If you have paid any attention at all to any of my prior posts (or for that matter can master basic reading comprehension skills since I specifically talked about existing gun rules in the post;)

    Who could possibly be against background checks, educating gun owners on gun safety and proper storage, keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys, and yes, keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers

    You would know that I am big law and order guy, respect most (not all) of the laws and rules we currently live under and have never advocated anarchy. But the rules mean nothing to rule breakers, the law means nothing to the lawless, I can’t dumb it down any more for you, sorry.

    Thumb up 6

  14. Section8

    “… unless I travel to the United States, will not be the victim of gun violence in the United States.”

    I’ve lived here for 42 years and have never even seen a person pull a gun except on TV. Quite an ignorant view if you think we’re all just pulling guns on one another on a daily basis. I’d suggest not coming here regardless of whether you care to or not. We certainly do have our share of stupid people, so no need for you to pile on to that number.

    As for guns not being needed to protect against tyranny, it’s kinda like insurance in that chances are you won’t need insurance, so why bother? That is until circumstances change unexpectedly and you’re fucked. A quick look through a history book will show plenty of examples of people not seeing it coming, and then can do nothing to stop it. THAT IS THE REAL WORLD. Of course you can stick with your “real world” that everything would be peachy in the world if it weren’t for those damn Americans.

    Thumb up 7

  15. AlexInCT

    Come on, you are messing with me, right? Nobody can be that obtuse.

    You are asking this in jest right, Rich? You are talking with a leftard moron. Of course they are really that obtuse, or they wouldn’t be leftists…

    With these leftists its always about the fact they want to prevent others from having the ability to do what they are too afraid or irresponsible to do themselves. Their fear of armed people has very little to do with anything logical, other than the fact that they don’t own one and feel it is unfair someone else does (exempt the “right” governemnt agents). And a disarmed populus is far more likely to comply with the leftist’s idea of how the serfs should respond to their ideal state’s mandates (not to be confused with two guys going on a date).

    The concept that people with very little respect for the law will always abuse the system regardless of how many laws and how strict the laws are, so no law will ever create the Nirvana the left pretends it can create, escapes them. But that’s on purpose. They don’t care about the fact that they are punishing or abusing the rights of the 99.8% of law abiding citizens. When it comes to guns the the majority of the progtard gun grabbers feel that since they don’t have the balls to own and use one, you shouldn’t either. Nanny Staterism 101. Which is why I always laugh at the elft when they claim that it is only the other side that’s driven by their own agenda when they try to force compliance with behavior. The left is worse than the people they constantly accuse of trying to deprive you of your right to “free” contraceptives or sex with goats.

    Thumb up 4

  16. CM


    Oh dear Alex, Iconoclast will soon be here to tell you off for using ‘tard’ as an insulting term. Any second now, I’m sure of it.

    Thumb up 0